Overview of the case study
The paper focusses on different concepts of ethical decision making from the case study of Jane and Smith. The study gives an overview of the circumstances through which these two do not want their child to undergo vaccination. Jane and smith are college-educated parents to Ana, who was born with no complications. The most intriguing thing, as illustrated from the case study, is the mentality and way of thinking of these two parents. They have done a lot of research on the benefits and limitations of a child undergoing vaccination. Surprisingly, their attitude on the same construct remains negative. In one context, their pediatrician, Dr. Kerr has elaborated and given them enough evidence that a child vaccination has benefits that outweigh the losses. Her argument is about the research performed by the federal government vaccines board. The study gives the idea that a lot of children have benefitted from a vaccination as it reduces the modality and mortality. The Smiths have done various research themselves in addition to the information given to them by Dr. Kerr on the importance of vaccinating Ana, but they seem reluctant. The case study shows their fear of the child suffering from more adverse effects such as asthma. From the case study, the study targeted children under-vaccinated and without a vaccine refusal diagnosis code. It goes on to investigate the barriers to vaccination that children may face. Concerning the ethical decision-making form the case study, it provides a significant dilemma as the doctor knows the benefits of treatment, but the parents seem reluctant. The study population constituted a survey conducted among parents and children between the age of 19-35 months. It includes gauging the vaccination status of the children in the study population by aligning them according to the VSD networks.
Analysis
Sampling for the administration constituted a vaccination group of 2043 sampled participants. These were located through a stratified random sampling method in the survey administration. Each child within the six strata was assessed in accordance with the vaccination data. Analysis of this data was made possible through the algorithm created to calculate the detailed information of the participants. Consideration of this algorithmic analysis included the minimum interval between doses, the participant’s age, as well as changes in recommendations over time. The administration constituted various methodologies for analysis, such as calculating the average distributed unit for each child, using their data to match it with their HER for diagnosis. It was important that the survey analysis whether the child has received a vaccine from outside the strata.
Analysis of ethical issues in the case study
The case study provided various ethical issues right from the conflict in ideas between Dr. Kerr and the Smiths. Regardless of their understanding of the importance of vaccination, the smith still held the attitude that injection had more disadvantages. These were inclusive of the risks associated with asthma and other allergic diseases that may arise. The refusal of Ana’s parents formed the baseline of ethical issues within the case study. Ideally, the refusal code caters only to the denial of influenza, which was initially not considered as a measurement scale in the study. Parents, on the other hand, choose not to vaccinate their children or to take their children elsewhere for vaccination away from the strata. There is a significant consideration that asthma-related risks and food allergies created diverse attitudes. Most parents do not recall missing out on a vaccine visit, or they would misinterpret the survey questions.
In this case study, those involved were inclusive of the parents of smith, Anna, their child, and Dr. Kerr. In this context, the ethical issue affected most of the parents who found it difficult to take their children for vaccination. There are a lot of factors that contributed to the moral issue mentioned above. Some are inclusive of various reports by parents who observed a series of allergies from pollen, house dirt, cat dander, or dog dander. There is increased attitudes by parents who do not have good regard for vaccination due to an increase in the number of associated risks. Other factors include the concept of misclassification of vaccine status. These factors significantly affect the ethical issue in concern.
Ethical decision-making model
In regard, ethical decision-making models play a vital role in promoting suggested mechanisms required for critical thinking about the issue in concern. In essence, it incorporates planning to mitigate or solve the ethical problems experienced. In this context, a six-step ethical decision-making model is used in analyzing the case study. The model bases its analysis on moral awareness, moral judgment, and ethical behavior. Moral consciousness primarily considers the behavior and actions of participants in this study. For instance, the responses from parents involving refusal to vaccinate their children, or delayed vaccination is covered within this construct. Moral judgment is based on decisions made from intuitions base on prevalent reasoning.
Regarding this study, the moral report evaluates the situation of vaccination administration, risks involved, and utilized ideas from various research. The information gotten from these sources helps in considering whether vaccination is essential to the health of the child or not. Ethical behavior in this case study conforms to the application of moral principles in deducing and understanding this issue.
Six step decision-making model
Analysis of this case study integrates the components of the six-step decision-making model in deriving ethical decisions from existing dilemmas (“Ethical Decision-making Models | Ethics in Dentistry: Part III – Ethical Decision-making | CE Course | dentalcare.com,” 2020). The first step involves identifying the ethical dilemma. In this context, the central moral dilemma is whether child vaccination is valuable enough to engage a child. Knowing this forms a baseline through which effective decisions can be made. It is crucial to collect enough information necessary for analyzing the ethical dilemma. The study utilizes questionnaires and survey administration to gather information. Information gathered includes data from the VSD networks, then comparing it with that from EHR diagnoses. The study indicates how 51.3% of the parents of the children who are under-vaccinated with a vaccine refusal diagnosis code explained how they had earlier on received the vaccine. After this consideration, the model states the existing options that can be embraced by the participants in the dilemma. Some of these include looking at all the current evidence and research that advocate for and against vaccination. Parents intentionally miss their child’s visits as a strategy to avoid vaccination. Also, following all the measures indicated in the study and analyzing all the components of the study may be considered. Applying various ethical principles such as loyalty, honesty, law-abiding, respect for others, and concern for others is advocated for. In making the decision, the ideal decision within this dilemma is to embrace the benefits of administration vaccination to children. Also, avoiding vaccination is achieved by utilizing discipline and law-abiding. Lastly, the model requires implementing the decisions imposed above. Assessment of the risks involved with respect to allergy and asthma should be taken seriously. Responding to ethical dilemmas and concerns affecting the participants require studies to compare and contrast the adverse effects of vaccination. They are conducting honest surveys for parents to find out the risks associated with misclassification or the vaccine.
Effective communication approaches in the case study.
Ideally, for the study to be efficient various communication approaches had to be utilized, which ensured that the flow of information is useful. Communication is essential in this case to promote awareness of the various contexts of vaccination. Healthcare professionals in teh study utilized persuasive approaches to communicate. It integrated the knowledge and perception of individuals through interpersonal communication. It constituted postal mails or emails which required feedback in six weeks. The conversation was done on three attempts. Using interpersonal communication was effective since most people would give information when there is a good relationship built. That is what interpersonal communication in healthcare do as participants feel as though their decisions and ideas are highly considered. In other words, it is easier to get messages through emails than relying on postal mail. It is a type of interpersonal communication utilizing the written communication form. Also, emails are fast and convenient since there are minimal risks involved in losing the message. To change the opinions of participants into appreciating vaccination, health professionals utilize persuasive communication approaches.
Conclusion
In conclusion,